For Those Who Still Insist That There Was Election Fraud

Derf

Well-known member
Tell us all, exactly why have Republican-appointed judges dismissed charges of fraud in the 2020 election?
I don’t have to. Your article does it. For example, “In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case.”
But in saying that, the article refutes its own title, since the reason given is dismissal for lack of standing. Which says NOTHING about the validity of the evidence. The article also refuted you, since you were using it to say there was no evidence.
Since you posted the article, that means you are refuting yourself.
Thank you. This post is now way to long to just say that I agree with you here.
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
I don’t have to. Your article does it. For example, “In a brief order, the justices said Texas did not have legal standing to bring the case.”
But in saying that, the article refutes its own title, since the reason given is dismissal for lack of standing. Which says NOTHING about the validity of the evidence. The article also refuted you, since you were using it to say there was no evidence.
Can you comprehend what you read beyond the second grade level? In fact, the article does state that judges threw out cases for lack of evidence! Here is a quote:

Independent experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

According to the Washington Post here , instead of alleging “widespread fraud or election-changing conspiracy” the lawsuits pushed by Trump’s team and allies focused on smaller complaints, which were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence. “The Republicans did not provide evidence to back up their assertions — just speculation, rumors or hearsay.”
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
Nah, what I forgot was the corrupt DNC.
Well according to @marke the RNC is also corrupt. It turns out that they are a bunch of Freemasons who are running cover for the voter fraud committed by Democrats who are also Freemasons. That sounds pretty corrupt to me. How do you feel about that?
 

Derf

Well-known member
Can you comprehend what you read beyond the second grade level? In fact, the article does state that judges threw out cases for lack of evidence! Here is a quote:

Independent experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

According to the Washington Post here , instead of alleging “widespread fraud or election-changing conspiracy” the lawsuits pushed by Trump’s team and allies focused on smaller complaints, which were largely dismissed by judges due to a lack of evidence. “The Republicans did not provide evidence to back up their assertions — just speculation, rumors or hearsay.”
I guess that question is a good one for you as well. Do you bother to read past what someone says when it supports your view?

There is no question that some "experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

But this is patently false. There was evidence of fraud in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, and others. I suppose it could be more widespread than that across the continental US (I've heard some rumblings about Alaska, even), but I think we've got the "widespread" part covered. And yes, in those places there are some republicans who were not on board with Trumps attempts to stop certifications--whether rightly or wrongly remains to be seen. Most of us want to trust the election system we have. More and more are starting to lose that trust. This shouldn't be such a big surprise to anyone, since democrats have protested elections for years with much scantier evidence.

Your quotation from WAPO that there's no evidence to back up the assertions? READ YOUR CITATIONS AT A HIGHER THAN SECOND GRADE LEVEL, User Name! It's dated 7 days after the election. 7 Days! Of course it would all seem like speculation, rumors or hearsay--such evidence takes time to develop to a presentable state. And those suits were mostly injunctions saying funny business is happening and should be stopped.


Again, we're back to a disagreement about what happened, and a decently comprehensive audit is just the thing for it.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
I guess that question is a good one for you as well. Do you bother to read past what someone says when it supports your view?

There is no question that some "experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

But this is patently false. There was evidence of fraud in Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Michigan, Wisconsin, and others. I suppose it could be more widespread than that across the continental US (I've heard some rumblings about Alaska, even), but I think we've got the "widespread" part covered. And yes, in those places there are some republicans who were not on board with Trumps attempts to stop certifications--whether rightly or wrongly remains to be seen. Most of us want to trust the election system we have. More and more are starting to lose that trust. This shouldn't be such a big surprise to anyone, since democrats have protested elections for years with much scantier evidence.

Your quotation from WAPO that there's no evidence to back up the assertions? READ YOUR CITATIONS AT A HIGHER THAN SECOND GRADE LEVEL, User Name! It's dated 7 days after the election. 7 Days! Of course it would all seem like speculation, rumors or hearsay--such evidence takes time to develop to a presentable state. And those suits were mostly injunctions saying funny business is happening and should be stopped.


Again, we're back to a disagreement about what happened, and a decently comprehensive audit is just the thing for it.
Was there a big fuss kicked up when Trump won in 2016? Did the democrats cry fraud or was there a concession from Clinton and a smooth transition of power to Trump?

Telling that you you use the term "much scantier evidence" in relation when you've attempted to berate others for wanting the substantive sort.
 

User Name

Greatest poster ever
Banned
There is no question that some "experts, governors and state election officials from both parties say there was no evidence of widespread fraud.

But this is patently false.
You yourself have admitted that there is no evidence of widespread fraud because audits have not been completed:
No, you’re not just waiting. You’re asking for results of the audit before the audit is complete. It’s premature, and therefore divisive..the audit hasn’t produced anything...it can’t produce anything unless it is allowed to complete.
That's hypocrisy.
 

Derf

Well-known member
Was there a big fuss kicked up when Trump won in 2016?
Yes, every day of his presidency.
Did the democrats cry fraud or was there a concession from Clinton and a smooth transition of power to Trump?

Should I continue???
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Yes, every day of his presidency.


Should I continue???
Oh, there's been a fuss over his presidency since he took office for sure and with good reason but that didn't answer the point. Was there any of this baseless fraud allegation and the like or did Clinton concede and aid a smooth transition of power?

I notice you didn't even touch on the latter in regards to "much scantier evidence". Why is that? Is it fair to presume that you, yourself would regard such as insubstantial?
 
Top